Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 8, 2011 6:00am-6:30am PST

6:00 am
increments, but the total property tax in the city and county. you will see that we collected approximately $1.9 billion recognized as revenue. of that amount, 67%, 1060 million, was allocated to the general fund. 9% was used for general obligation debt. reallocate a further 6% to our three special sons. this is property-tax that belongs to the city and county, but there has been a determination to allocated for these purposes. of that $1.9 billion, 22% goes to the school district, the community college district, and the educational funds that support the state's funding of those schools.
6:01 am
a small amount as provided to bart and the bay area management district. about 1%. in fiscal year 2009, there was a net amount retained by the redevelopment agency. it was about 5% of the total revenues recognized. i will mention a few facts here. maybe we will go into more detail. as you can see, the redevelopment agency is 5% of the total net after they pass through the increments they are initially allocated. they were eligible -- the maximum tax increment was about $53 million more than that. we are an unusual jurisdiction in san francisco. we have just one city and county and redevelopment agency at this point. the county retains the budget approval authority over the tax
6:02 am
increment funding, which allowed a decision by the county not to allocate the entire maximum tax increment. $53 million was not allocated through the budget process. it does appear likely, depending on what happens with this discussion about redevelopment, the way things are trending, tax increment financing requirements are likely to grow, as we anticipate there will be new activity and bonding relating to hunters point, treasure island. it will be further discussed on the financing district. those are some of the general facts. now i will turn into amy for more detail. >> thank you. supervisor chu: i know you have provided us with pretty lengthy overview. in the interest of time, because
6:03 am
we do have a bigger presentation today, if i could just ask you to focus briefly on just an overview of san francisco redevelopment agency, and then to walk through primarily where our redevelopment project areas are, number one, and two, walk us through the financial investment that we have given as a city, as opposed to the project areas. >> sure. i will go through briefly the redevelopment agency and the increment financing. i will also address your concerns. iowa and sorry of the copy is not good for the general public. supervisor chu: speaking to the microphone. >> sure. in general, redevelopment agency's are organized under the california community redevelopment law. we worked in designated project areas for plans that are adopted
6:04 am
by legislative bodies. agencies may establish land use controls, acquire and dispose of property, and issue bonds and obligations. that is the definition of a tax increment. we use these funds to invest and leverage private investment to finance affordable housing. sorry. financing represents a viable tool for officials to publicly finance infrastructure and other development initiatives without drawing on existing revenues are proposing new taxes. every develop and project area is designated based on findings of light by the legislative body, along with the plan, which sets forth methods for improvement. the bonds they issue and the proceeds are used to play -- pay for the improvements, which
6:05 am
encourage private development and increase property values. with the development and increased to values, property tax revenues rise and the revenue is over and above the level before the project area began. it is used to service the debt and raise additional fund proceeds. there are various time limits. i will go into that a little more. various payments are made to the state and other tax entities for which each dollar of increment is received by the redevelopment agency. 20% comes from every pot -- comes from every project area and is used toward financing affordable housing. just a generic map of the project area and the various stages. we have several in survey areas. implementation planning and the
6:06 am
close out. this just lists -- supervisor kim: that is where there is a process to create a redevelopment zone? >> correct. 18 months to 2 years. treasure island is already established, a separate area. there might be discussion of merging treasure island with others. i don't think we're there yet. supervisor chu: and transbay? >> that is part of it. it was established in 2005. supervisor chu: ok. >> this just lists some of the various redevelopment project areas and the date they were established.
6:07 am
as an overview, i know there were questions about the history and activities of the agencies in the past. based on the existing project you are interested in. one of the things that is interesting, and i will go into more detail later, we are the only redevelopment agency in california that is able to incur debt for the purposes of affordable housing. normally, after it has expired, we have no legal ability. after it expires, we look for approval from the board of supervisors to get an amendment approved. we can issue additional bonds.
6:08 am
supervisor chu: for the areas you have listed, you have shown this compared to 2011. redevelopment agency's art -- dollars and we have had the redevelopment agency's adding in the increment. this is approximately $46
6:09 am
million which have been paid. >> -- and so are these cuts by legislation? >> yes. >> we are only the agency and the state of california. we will receive a net of 100. this is the 10-year them the
6:10 am
history. >> everyone else talks about the budget history and other share where we can bomb use it by. >> the total tax increment that redevelopment has received is
6:11 am
$89 million. the agency had to pass through a certain amount of that you really got to spend $80 million. if we were to see what the value is, we were actually able to see in terms of the tax collection of $133 million of which we gave the agency -- >> yes. >> we have been foregoing collecting $89 million of revenue which otherwise would come to the general fund. >> if the agency was nonexistent, that increment would not have been available. there may not have been that much significance. >> i understand that point. yes, we might have received an
6:12 am
$89 million tax increment diversion and that helped to create the value growth. >> is an agreement -- is our any increment that is still being generated? >> this is only used for the housing. >> is it still assigned to that area or assigned to other areas in san francisco? >> the proceeds, we use them for citywide housing. i interest and that with the expiration, we made a commitment that this could be on the western addition. >> i would like to find out what that looks like. i know that all projects have
6:13 am
been under way or they are seen as finishing this. is there anything that is generated by the projects yet to be completed in terms of revenue that would leave the western addition and go elsewhere? >> i am not understanding the question. normally, the tax assessor is a little bit behind. sometimes the initial project is on the purchase of the property and this is on the tax rolls of a million dollars. so, there would be some available intimate based on the growth or value increase that we
6:14 am
would be able to use, and utilize to issue bonds and raise funds. >> if this is one of the last projects and the western addition and a former redevelopment area and that project is completed in 2011 or 2012, where then with that in commit be applied? >> it would be applied for citywide housing. we are able to utilize any increments from expired areas to raise bond proceeds and issue debt and use those proceeds solely for the purpose of housing. normally, the proceeds are used for citywide housing. >> it is it possible that we can get some forecasts? >> sure. >> thank you, supervisor.
6:15 am
this information is helpful. just from the budget perspective, from the budget office, i intend there is a circular argument here. maybe when they're is not a tax increment that would come in. every dollar that we are sending over in terms of the tax increment is also another dollar that we would not be spending in general operations. >> there is a trade-off and we are in a unique situation in san francisco because we are a city and a county and we have a trade-off discussion about the need for tax increments because as you say to the extent that we cannot allocate these to the agency's that are available to
6:16 am
support the general fund. the increment that is not going into redevelopment projects, the extent that we allocate more to the redevelopment agency's that might generate beneficial projects and value growth and the trade-off is that we have less money available for other city and county operating expenses. that is a trade-off discussion that we have to have to determine which projects will maximize the outcomes in the redevelopment agency's and allocate property tax dollars. >> in terms of the budget, is there an anticipated increase in the tax increment that redevelopment will be asking
6:17 am
for, do you have a level of diversion? >> our debt service increases significantly every year so in order for us to increase -- incorporate that, we would have to increase our work program. we try to do a fine balance in the debt service. if you look at my second short where it has the estimated budget,, i was trying to do some kind of projection. we do see an increase in the debt service for 99 has opposed to last year. the net increase, i will not do
6:18 am
as much work in other areas in terms of our other economic development and also increases in our revenue. we have property sales and other leases. the general fund impact will be 57.76. the agency -- >> don't you have the approval of a certain revenue stream and the stream of debt? >> this is based off of prior
6:19 am
year debt. it is $115 million. as i sell debt, i have a 30-year schedule. the numbers are incorporated. i am not in the same cycle as the city. we get our budget approved by the board of supervisors after i get the ability to issue debt. >> ok, so you sell your pet based on a tax increment financing on that debt. >> we need to be able to cut the
6:20 am
debt payment by 120%. >> the budget discussions are continuing with the budget office and this is not a final proposal at all but i request looking towards operations to figure out ways that you can cover some of your expense increases as much as possible to the extent that they are able to allocate additional tax increment said that we can help the general fund. >> especially coming from the agency in the past, i understand the impact of the general fund. we are trying to figure out other sources. we have less than $7 million of
6:21 am
the tax increment. that is a discussion. a lot of it in mission bay. not even the general fund would see this as well. the numbers are included in the budget so this is a little bit deceiving. the skosh just straight to the developer. -- this just goes straight to the developer. >> san francisco is only one of two or at most three counties statewide. this is not affiliated with the county board of supervisors. the majority of redevelopment agencies statewide are affiliated with the board of supervisors.
6:22 am
when you explained the budget approval process here in san francisco, we vote on the budget thumbs up or thumbs down. we are able to issue debt after we vote on the budget. i asked other counties, is that the same sequence of the issuing of debt. it is our understanding that the board of supervisors is able to intercede on how that debt is issued and can they have a line item authority on the redevelopment agency -- budget? if you can speak a little bit to governance. the issue plays into some of the framing of the potential savings that could be found but we really don't have the statutory authority from the sequencing of this structure to
6:23 am
find that much savings. >> as i understand it, while the board of supervisors has a thumbs-up or a thumbs down as you mentioned, we do go to the process with the budget office in terms of what are the expenses, what are the revenue, what are the increases. >> that does not come to us. i have never seen the redevelopment project. i never seen a change because we don't have that ability as it has been blessed by the redevelopment commission.
6:24 am
>> so, i think you are right. i think the practice has been historically in my detailed work with a budget analyst, this has been a detailed deletion of a position. i am wondering maybe if you would like more control or involvement in our budget which would have to work through the budget analyst office. >> i think we would all like control. our colleagues from whatever their motivation is, is there a possibility for them to be able to reserve funding from redevelopment advances.
6:25 am
in my opinion that have a different governance structure, we are less able to do that the way that other counties are. i don't know if it is possible for its deep budget analyst of what it would take in order to enhance our authorities to we would have greater say in this question. >> in years past and we will continue this next year, the board of supervisors has directed us to review the budget to a slightly review all other city budgets and we to
6:26 am
submit recommendations to you normally as implemented or reduced the budgets based on our recommendations. my understanding -- if the redevelopment agency was to fight the recommendations or disagree, then the board would not be able to make those cuts. this has been a cooperative basis in years past and hopefully that will continue into the future. >> we don't have line item authority. >> you don't perce but you can make reductions based on our recommendations. >> that also has to be approved by the chief executive. >> actually, by their commission. >> in the sequence seen that
6:27 am
after approving the budget, then they are allowed to file the issue of debt the way they would like, is that correct? >> yes, because our budget total, the net revenue and expenses and the difference is funded by the bond proceeds. these are given to the mayor's office and the budget analyst. so, when adam and the practice of reducing these, the net budget and the net amount that we need to fill between the revenue and the past proceeds is approved in that process and we have a general amount. i understand your point about the statutory rules out there.
6:28 am
once again, just to highlight that in san francisco, we are the only once to do a review. most take the entire tax -- and we do not. >> we should do an assessment. the city redevelopment and the governing structures and the state of california, i don't think that we can have a thorough discussion on this question about being able to perhaps harvest more dollars with us being able to understand the difference in the governance structure is and whether by interpretation or by fact, it seems that the board of
6:29 am
supervisors are able to have more control and effect on what the dollar amount looks like. there are several counties statewide that have a structure similar to ours and it takes the question, what are we doing different than anyone else? >> right now, with the state budget and the proposal, we are being put up their as a model redevelopment agency given the tax increment and our work with the mayor's office. we are making sure that our revenues are used for redevelopment and not be used -- not abused. >> he said that? >> yes.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on